Phuckin granola crunchers! :cussing:
Great book about this by the way
Printable View
I like hippies and I like environmentalist. But I don't like idiots. Those people were idiots. I've never understood eco-terrorism and stopped reading the monkey wrench gang about 30 pages into it. The idea is stupid. By destroying something you merely cause more resources to be used in rebuilding it. And you give environmentalists a bad name, especially in this day and age and even more so under the current administration. Seriously, the ony way you would stop something through that kind of activity is to inflict a large enough economic blow on "the corporations, man" that it could not proceed. With insurance being universal for the types of things tthey target, they will never achieve that goal. Thus, idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiski
Any idea how much that lodge cost?
Envirowhacko thought process "Evil corporations brutally raping Mother Earth by using poor trees on top of mountains... lets BURN IT, burn the wood, burn the insulation, burn the plastic, release it all back into the mountain air... that will show them... or something... Gaia must be avenged! Just as soon as I find my hash stash..."
So the whackos were really trying to take down the insurance companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Star
Great fiction read!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTV
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiski
actually, terrorism and intentional vandalism are typically not covered by normal insurance policies. [/insurance drone]
So do you know who incured the loss?Quote:
Originally Posted by schuss
You read the book?Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
Yeah. Like I said, fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud Green
As a person who often works with environmental activists I have made a few observations. First and foremost most of the project the environmental activists take benefit from their involvement. Second the environmental activists are very good at using the review process to their advantage. Unfortunately this is where they get a bad wrap from the public and get labeled as environmental wackos. Third, like any group there are "good" groups and "difficult" groups to work with. Fourth the perception environmental activists generally have when they participate in a project is negative.
On the second point NEPA and the states version of NEPA is where the high profile conflicts most often come from. EA's and EIS's are information documents not decision documents and to me it seems that that distinction is ignored. Other areas where the process is used is challenging the permit decision.
On the fourth point it is a shame that the public has this perception. I understand where it comes from though. It seems like the only time you hear about an Environmental Group such as the Sierra Club is when they are bringing a lawsuit against a decision. People need to realize they were probably involved in negotiations early in the process. This negative perception is carried into the negotiations, which make it much more difficult to find common ground. Often if the project proponent and env. group had better communication these law suits could be avoided.
I dealt with environmental activist that many would call environmental wacko's. I've testified in court because of the actions of these so called wacko and have been verbally attacked in print. However I've also worked with environmental activist that have been instrumental in discovering solutions to complex issues.
Really? I thought it was the firebombings, breakins, arson, and sabatoge...Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
Why don't they go back to chaining themselves to trees as teargas targets?
Or when immigration issue lobbyists try to usurp a legitimate environmental group for their own political machinations... low bastards... (even though I may agree with them too)Quote:
It seems like the only time you hear about an Environmental Group such as the Sierra Club is when they are bringing a lawsuit against a decision.
Because those happen all the time :rolleyes: Maybe they could be antiabortion protestors or "freedom fighters" and start assasinating peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
The Sierra Club. That terrorist organisation that counts Ansel Adams among former members and fought against a dam in the grand canyon at the cost of their tax exempt status. Now they have become like every other big lobbying group willing to horse trade positions and issues with other big lobbying groups for support (insert immigration, abortion, etc). Groups left, right, center and way off in lalaland do this too. Welcome to politics, it's a big nasty world.
I suggest you read my post more closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
If I didn't correctly decipher your post, post in a manner that doesn't require devination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Environmental groups don't get a bad rap from the stupid stuff a few reactionary retards do - they get a bad rap because they are inherently reactionary and negative. As is shown daily, the American public loathes these qualities even if the group with that agenda and manner ends up correct. America wants positive people. Environmental groups function protect the environment from abuse - they have no positive agenda; the earth doesn't need one. It just needs to be left alone. They are ill suited to the current public perception climate and media circus (as are some other advocacy groups) when style is oft confused with substance, and manner with message.
Excuse me while I go dump silver down the drain and sniff acetic acid
Are you guys all serious? Fuck Vail. I am glad they burned it . It sucks the kids who did it were caught. We should be going after real terrorists, not these guys who are destroying property. As Americans we sit back and don't do shit when we may not agree with what happens to our environment. It is refreshing to have someone do something. Fuck VA!
You in Mensa?Quote:
Originally Posted by burtonsunfish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Your picking out a couple of incidents, terrible as they may be and act like every Environmetnal Group supports their actions or does the same thing. How about when the environmental groups stood up and took the US Army Corps of Engineers to task for selling out the environment just to make a buck for themselves and shipping companies when they messed with floodplain modeling to make the Mississippi dams look less harmful than they actually are.
How about the Environmental Groups that try to stop and private landfill from expanding into public hunting grounds because they want to take more out-of-state waste. Are they environmetnal wackos too? If you had read the paper regarding these projects you may think so.
The fact that you toss in actions from a fringe group like the ELF in with all environmental group actions only further supports my point.
If an environmental group came into the project at the end and gave an ultimatum to the other stakeholders that statement may hold water, but I have never seen that happen. Environmental groups 9 out of 10 times are involved with the process from the earliest point the can be. They do compromise as hard as it may be to believe, but when all their recommendations are ignored or not even addressed they don't have a lot of alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkendrenchman
hahahahahahahahahahahaha.:biggrin:
Your latte grande and the hummer you wanna buy are safe now.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTV
Th only "Hummers" I buy are from the nice friendly ladies in Honduras... :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
It's great that we can enjoy outdoor sports like BC skiing, mountain biking, kayaking, and mountain climbing, which are almost totally dependent on the hard work and sacrifice of the environmental movement over decades, while sitting around on our ass sipping lattes and taking a shit on the people who make it possible.
Did these people step over a line? Yes. Have many ski areas stepped over the same line, by bribing legislators and the USFS to do land swaps or jimmy the EIS so they can build more condos in protected wildlife habitat or wetlands? Yes. Both of them are destructive. I'm not going to disapprove of one without also disapproving of the other.
Also, "animal liberation" has nothing to do with environmentalism.